Seriously? Maybe because it's a known fact that criminals don't follow the laws we have now! What in your obtuse train of thought makes you think they will follow any news ones?

What about the statistics LAFE posted that show gun violence decresed over the last 20 years? What happened to gun laws over the past 20 years? They got more strict. There is a direct correlation there, don't you think? Nothing obtuse about it.

We pass new laws all the time. We tweak existing laws to make them more effective all the time. Nothing obtuse about that either. Why should gun control laws be any different?

What about the statistics LAFE posted that show gun violence decresed over the last 20 years? What happened to gun laws over the past 20 years? They got more strict. There is a direct correlation there, don't you think? Nothing obtuse about it.

We pass new laws all the time. We tweak existing laws to make them more effective all the time. Nothing obtuse about that either. Why should gun control laws be any different?

The trick is with both the current administration and the possibly of another liberal anti-gun administration in the future the laws will be far more than "tweaked".

That's not being paranoid. That's simply looking at what they have said they would like to do.

This is where you lose the right to a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

Please explain. Numerous times you've noted you were only looking for universal background checks. I noted that while I was not opposed to them on their own, I agree with many that they appear only to be a first step. You denied that, but then go on to justifying the merits of magazine limitations and action restrictions. Thus you proved my point that you know the next step in the crusade. It's got nothing to do with tyranny, but everything to do with a major section of the population fearing something and using their democratic power to attempt to remove said fear. I'm not worried about a government take over, I'm worried the liberals will finally get enough power to remove firearms from law abiding citizens in the name of the innocent children, while actually reducing their safety from crime.

This isn't any different than certain people asking for more liberal laws on wire tapping or information gathering. Why shouldn't we allow that, in the end it'll likely stop another mass killing such as the one we suffered on 9/11.

Same thing: giving up some freedoms we currently have for the safety of our future. Isn't that what your gun control message is?

What about the statistics LAFE posted that show gun violence decresed over the last 20 years? What happened to gun laws over the past 20 years? They got more strict. There is a direct correlation there, don't you think? Nothing obtuse about it.

We pass new laws all the time. We tweak existing laws to make them more effective all the time. Nothing obtuse about that either. Why should gun control laws be any different?

So the Brady Bill sunsetting is no issue, right? Gun violence is still decreasing, while legal gun sales are increasing. The difference is that with today's technology and media, it's in our face at every moment. We just didn't have the access a decade ago we have today.

I asked where is it written you have a "right" to a large capacity magazine? Please be specific.

Given that they're currently legal, the onus should be to prove that by putting further restrictions in place we will see a positive result. Due to the fact that magazines are hugely abundant, they'll never be out of circulation, thus one who is intent on violating the law in a most heinous way (mass murder) is not likely to worry about a pesky violation of magazine restrictions. At the same time, law abiding citizens will see their ability to defend themselves and their homes by the same action.

Again, the SCOTUS ruled that a well regulated militia meant able bodied Americans that could be conscripted. How well would that work if they were only armed with single shot shotguns with (lead free) bird shot?

I say, it is fairly comical you get branded paranoid when you state a concern that registration will lead to confiscation. Yet not all that long ago, in the state of Louisiana, that very thing happened.
Funny how you get accused of being to literal in your interpretation of the Constitution when you read "the right to keep and bare arms". But those very same people manage to read that very same sentence like such:
The right to keep and bare arms....but
those with a large capacity magazine
those that look like an assault rifle
those that are semi-automatic, etc.
Hysterical when those very same people keep touting all these restrictions, checks and bans with out any proof they are effective. Worse, completely ignore the undeniable truth that countries that have done these restriction had a marked increase in violent crime.
Sad that they truly believe if their pet laws are passed, criminals will suddenly see the light and there will be a dramatic decrease in crime.

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information

Taking on their own, murders by gun are actually very low compared to the rest of the industrialized world. But activists love to add suicides in their numbers to skew the truth. Yes, it is a problem, but so is criminal recidivism, what is you solution for that? So is existing gun laws being continually broken by criminals, what is your solution for that. A vast majority of gun deaths are suicide, what is your solution for that?

Sorry, but not limited to mass shootings. Thankfully, those are rare occurrences.

You lost me on your second comment...I never said nor implied you were "saying" anything. We're discussing the issue...that's good in my opinion.

As I said...I am not the all-knowing with all the answers. That's why it's still being discussed. If anyone had the answer...the problem would not exist.

I can't help but wonder when one of you in favor of national universal backgrounds will respond to the fact that 2 exmples you site as reasons for background checks would have had EXACTLY the same outcome if background checks were infact in place.

Sandy Hook, a mentally ill man murdered his mother and then stole her legally purchased and owned firearms to commit his murders. Columbine, it appears some of the guns were straw purchases made by friends or acquaintances. Background checks would have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent either of these horrific events.

It's a right granted by the Constitution, therefore I don't have to "explain" why I should have it. The Constitution grants it. It's really very simple.

There is no paranoia except there are those on the left that wants to erode the rights that we are granted by the Constitution.

It's funny in that many of those who want to take Constitutionally based gun rights away from American citizens are trying to give the Constitutional right to vote to illegal immigrants, who have broke the law by entering this country illegally and deserve no Constitutional rights at all.

I can't help but wonder when one of you in favor of national universal backgrounds will respond to the fact that 2 exmples you site as reasons for background checks would have had EXACTLY the same outcome if background checks were infact in place.

Sandy Hook, a mentally ill man murdered his mother and then stole her legally purchased and owned firearms to commit his murders. Columbine, it appears some of the guns were straw purchases made by friends or acquaintances. Background checks would have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent either of these horrific events.

Never implied they would stop everything. Never implied they will stop nothing. Truly believe they would fall somewhere in the middle. Not seeing that as a bad thing.

Never implied they would stop everything. Never implied they will stop nothing. Truly believe they would fall somewhere in the middle. Not seeing that as a bad thing.

I have no issues with background checks for guns purchased from a dealer, or even at a gun show.

My issue is the requirement for a check if I want to sell my gun to Joe down the street, or give Joe my gun. I also have issues with expanding the disqualifier beyond a felony, and have serious issues with banning the sales of anything but a fully automatic and large capacity clips.

My issue is the requirement for a check if I want to sell my gun to Joe down the street, or give Joe my gun.

I guess I see this as our sticking point. We cannot expand checks and not make them all encompassing. Any expansion must require every transfer to be properly vetted. Joe down the street may pass you allegiance test, but as we often find out, we don't know our neighbors like we think we do. While none of the checks are a sticking point for me, they're just a step in a longer process.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

I also have issues with expanding the disqualifier beyond a felony, and have serious issues with banning the sales of anything but a fully automatic and large capacity clips.

Why would you support the banning of fully automatic weapons or large capacity magazines? The first is truly heavily regulated and I'd ask anyone here to find a single case in the last 3 or 4 decades where a properly licensed Class 3 weapon was used in a crime. It's hard to argue that if you're a law abiding citizen, you should not have your right to bear arms infringed on then allow a restriction on parts that might very well be crucial to your own self-defense. The point being that in the hands of a responsible legal owner, a 100 round box mag is no more dangerous than a 10 round magazine. Personally I'm not for adding the weight over a 30 round mag, but they pose no more threat to the innocent either way in my hand.

I guess I see this as our sticking point. We cannot expand checks and not make them all encompassing. Any expansion must require every transfer to be properly vetted. Joe down the street may pass you allegiance test, but as we often find out, we don't know our neighbors like we think we do. While none of the checks are a sticking point for me, they're just a step in a longer process.

I think you misunderstood me. I do not support requiring a background check if I sell my gun to Joe or give my gun to Joe.

I see that as infringing on our Constitutional rights.

Why would you support the banning of fully automatic weapons or large capacity magazines? The first is truly heavily regulated and I'd ask anyone here to find a single case in the last 3 or 4 decades where a properly licensed Class 3 weapon was used in a crime. It's hard to argue that if you're a law abiding citizen, you should not have your right to bear arms infringed on then allow a restriction on parts that might very well be crucial to your own self-defense. The point being that in the hands of a responsible legal owner, a 100 round box mag is no more dangerous than a 10 round magazine. Personally I'm not for adding the weight over a 30 round mag, but they pose no more threat to the innocent either way in my hand.

Again, you misunderstood my post. I do not support banning semi-automatic weapons or large capacity magazines.

While I know we're on the same basic side of this issue, I do understand your post. You, like me, are not overly concerned about background checks, but where we differ is that I understand that if there's any chance of them having success, they'll have to account for every single transaction regardless of who transfers what to whom, where or why. I still don't see those checks as an infringement on my rights, but I oppose them on the basis that they'll not be enough and will prove only to be a stepping stone.

As for magazine capacity and full auto firearms, you were fairly clear when you said: "I also have issues with expanding the dis-qualifier beyond a felony, and have serious issues with banning the sales of anything but a fully automatic and large capacity clips."

I'm not saying you can't have your opinion, we all do and no amount of computer time will make any of them wrong, but I feel it's hard to make some of the harder assertions that background checks and bans are an infringement on our rights, then support parts of them.

So I'm clear on my position:
1. I'm not supportive of the universal checks, but not because I think they infringe on our rights, to me they do not.
1a. Pass a law with clear language that protects law abiding citizens ownership of the current legal firearms and I'll support universal checks and even a registry. I fear not an illegal coup within the US government. A legal one, is what I "fear".
2. I believe the freedom to own those firearms and parts therein, that allow any law abiding American citizen to equalize their chance of survival in an act of violence against themselves, their family, home or business. This means high capacity magazines, semi-automatic actions, pistol grips, folding stocks, etc. All these things have total relevance in the real world (not your Hollywood shoot-outs). In the hands of law abiding citizens they pose no greater threat.
3. We can combat illegal firearm use by strictly enforcing our current laws, increasing sentences, imposing minimum sentences, and holding owners responsible for failure to properly make their weapons safe (I know, that would require some definitive language)
4. Put firearms and drugs in the same place and the same time, extremely strong mandatory sentences for any adult who knowingly is present and not being held against their will.

While I know we're on the same basic side of this issue, I do understand your post. You, like me, are not overly concerned about background checks, but where we differ is that I understand that if there's any chance of them having success, they'll have to account for every single transaction regardless of who transfers what to whom, where or why. I still don't see those checks as an infringement on my rights, but I oppose them on the basis that they'll not be enough and will prove only to be a stepping stone.

As for magazine capacity and full auto firearms, you were fairly clear when you said: "I also have issues with expanding the dis-qualifier beyond a felony, and have serious issues with banning the sales of anything but a fully automatic and large capacity clips."

Meant to say "but a fully automatic weapon". I have no issues with the sale of and the owning of large capacity magazines. I have no issue why I stated that I did .... We have had a very confusing morning with lots of ice here.

I'm not saying you can't have your opinion, we all do and no amount of computer time will make any of them wrong, but I feel it's hard to make some of the harder assertions that background checks and bans are an infringement on our rights, then support parts of them.

So I'm clear on my position:
1. I'm not supportive of the universal checks, but not because I think they infringe on our rights, to me they do not.

I do not support universal background checks as well. My reason is that I do feel that they are an infringement on our rights.

1a. Pass a law with clear language that protects law abiding citizens ownership of the current legal firearms and I'll support universal checks and even a registry. I fear not an illegal coup within the US government. A legal one, is what I "fear".

I do not support registry.

2. I believe the freedom to own those firearms and parts therein, that allow any law abiding American citizen to equalize their chance of survival in an act of violence against themselves, their family, home or business. This means high capacity magazines, semi-automatic actions, pistol grips, folding stocks, etc. All these things have total relevance in the real world (not your Hollywood shoot-outs). In the hands of law abiding citizens they pose no greater threat.

Agree.

3. We can combat illegal firearm use by strictly enforcing our current laws, increasing sentences, imposing minimum sentences, and holding owners responsible for failure to properly make their weapons safe (I know, that would require some definitive language)

Agree.

4. Put firearms and drugs in the same place and the same time, extremely strong mandatory sentences for any adult who knowingly is present and not being held against their will.

Agree.

I'm sure that's just a start...

Last year, the legislature here in LA passed a strongly worded bill that reaffirmed gun rights in the state, even if there was federal legislation passed to erode those rights.

Given that they're currently legal, the onus should be to prove that by putting further restrictions in place we will see a positive result. Due to the fact that magazines are hugely abundant, they'll never be out of circulation, thus one who is intent on violating the law in a most heinous way (mass murder) is not likely to worry about a pesky violation of magazine restrictions. At the same time, law abiding citizens will see their ability to defend themselves and their homes by the same action.

Again, the SCOTUS ruled that a well regulated militia meant able bodied Americans that could be conscripted. How well would that work if they were only armed with single shot shotguns with (lead free) bird shot?

Why should the onus be to prove a law will work before passing it? That standard does not apply in any other area; why should it apply to gun regulation?

So we have "single shot shotguns with (lead free) bird shot". We have fully automatic rifles with unlimited capacity. Do we not have ANYTHING in between? This is where people on both sides of the arguement get entirely goofy. They (like you have in your example) go to extremes. The constitution allows the militia not only to be regulated, but "well" regulated. We can argue forever about what exactly that means. But it does mean conclusively and definitively that regulations are allowed to be applied to that militia. The militia is all of us. If you want to point to the 2nd amendment, point to the entire amendment. How many gun owners truly believe deep down in their hearts that they will EVER enter into the army to "provide for the national defense"? That's why the amendment was written and that's what it addressed. I'd bet a good chunk of gun owners would resist serving with all their might, based in large part on their constitutional rights.

I say, it is fairly comical you get branded paranoid when you state a concern that registration will lead to confiscation. Yet not all that long ago, in the state of Louisiana, that very thing happened.
Funny how you get accused of being to literal in your interpretation of the Constitution when you read "the right to keep and bare arms". But those very same people manage to read that very same sentence like such:
The right to keep and bare arms....but
those with a large capacity magazine
those that look like an assault rifle
those that are semi-automatic, etc.
Hysterical when those very same people keep touting all these restrictions, checks and bans with out any proof they are effective. Worse, completely ignore the undeniable truth that countries that have done these restriction had a marked increase in violent crime.
Sad that they truly believe if their pet laws are passed, criminals will suddenly see the light and there will be a dramatic decrease in crime.

Yes the constitution grants the right to bear arms. But that's only part of the amendment. There is also a part where the constitution states that the militia should be well regulated. The restrictions you mentioned could be referred to as regulations, could they not?

Why should any one have to prove a law will work before passing it. As I've pointed out before, this standard applies in NO OTHER AREA of our lives.

I can't help but wonder when one of you in favor of national universal backgrounds will respond to the fact that 2 exmples you site as reasons for background checks would have had EXACTLY the same outcome if background checks were infact in place.

Sandy Hook, a mentally ill man murdered his mother and then stole her legally purchased and owned firearms to commit his murders. Columbine, it appears some of the guns were straw purchases made by friends or acquaintances. Background checks would have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent either of these horrific events.

National universal bachground checks will not be 100% effective. NO LAW IS! Yet we still have them.

Why should the onus be to prove a law will work before passing it? That standard does not apply in any other area; why should it apply to gun regulation?

Because they are imposing on leagal ownership and restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. The burden to show why something is required in law is nearly always placed on those sponsoring the legislation. Look at what it took to make Bath Salts illegal and why when they're ever-changing the LE community cannot keep up.

Originally Posted by captnjak

So we have "single shot shotguns with (lead free) bird shot". We have fully automatic rifles with unlimited capacity. Do we not have ANYTHING in between?

Well right now the ownership of fully automatic firearms is very heavily regulated and no one is trying to change that to less restriction. So we are in between right now. See if you can find a recent crime where a legally owned Class 3 firearm was used.

Originally Posted by captnjak

This is where people on both sides of the arguement get entirely goofy. They (like you have in your example) go to extremes. The constitution allows the militia not only to be regulated, but "well" regulated. We can argue forever about what exactly that means. But it does mean conclusively and definitively that regulations are allowed to be applied to that militia. The militia is all of us. If you want to point to the 2nd amendment, point to the entire amendment. How many gun owners truly believe deep down in their hearts that they will EVER enter into the army to "provide for the national defense"? That's why the amendment was written and that's what it addressed. I'd bet a good chunk of gun owners would resist serving with all their might, based in large part on their constitutional rights.

That's not exactly why the 2nd Amendment was written and while they used conscription to define the "well regulated militia" they also ruled that individual ownership was absolute. The Founding Fathers recognized in many other works, the only free people were those who were able to defend themselves against any government, their won especially as was their immediate history at that time.